None of the above....

....or what if none of them are electable!
I suggested below that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy of making Obama unelectable might be working but in the process she was making herself even less electable than he. But what about John McCain. Now here is a candidate that should be unelectable. He is in favor of continuing an occupation that over two thirds of Americans want to end. On nearly ever issue he promises to continue the policies of a president who has the highest unfavorable reading ever recorded. And the few remaining Bush supporters don't trust him. As Frank Rich pointed out this morning 27 percent of the PA Republicans showed up to vote against John McCain in a primary that is all but meaningless.

I made a prediction two years ago:

I'm not going to predict any individuals but I will predict that the election will be decided by at least two strong third party candidates. I'm not saying one of them will win but they will decide the election. Of course it won't be the first time, Ross Perot's race gave Bill Clinton the win in 92 and Ralph Nader gave the election to George W. Bush in 2000.

This time it will be different there will be two strong third party candidates, one on the left and one on the right. If Hillary gets the nomination there will be a large chunk of the Democratic base will be looking for an alternative.

I was wrong - no strong third party candidates have materialized. So who will decide? Those who simply decide not to participate. McCain's best chance is against Hillary. Many Republicans who might not vote will to keep Hillary Clinton out of the white. Hillary has managed to offend the black voters and the urban white voters. Obama will not inspire the Republicans as much and may pick up some Libertarian and even Republican votes. The only thing that Hillary's campaign has accomplished is to make her the least electable of the three.

As for me - I won't vote for Clinton or McCain and I won't be a part of inflating Ralph Nader's ego. For me it will be none of the above. I will work hard to make sure that progressive Democrats are elected to the House and the Senate.

Update
It's the Independents stupid.
I'm an Independent and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I think this is about right.
CLASH OF THE INDEPENDENTS

April 27, 2008 -- It's electability, stupid.
That's what Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been spinning to super-delegates and anyone else who will listen since she lost her grip on once-inevitable nomination.

There's just one problem – when it comes to independent voters, those crucial swing votes in swing states, Hillary doesn't hold the electability edge: Barack Obama does.

Independent voters favor Obama by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary – 49% to 24% – according to a NBC/WSJ poll taken after the Jeremiah Wright scandal in late March. His approval rating among Republicans is almost twice Hillary's as well – 19% to 10%.

Crossover appeal is the key indicator of electability – especially for Democrats. Despite Democratic dominance of Congress during most of the 20th Century, no Democratic president managed to win more than 51% of the popular vote, with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. What's the lesson? Democrats especially depend on Independent voters and even some centrist Republicans to win the White House.

That's true now more than ever: Independent voters are the fastest growing and largest segment of the American electorate, as detailed in former Clinton and Bloomberg pollster Doug Schoen's new book "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Obama's Independent edge has already had an impact in key 2008 swing states like Virginia, where independents made up 22% of the February 12th open primary. Obama won their support by a 2 to 1 margin, on his way to a 64-35 blowout victory.

As I said above Hillary is the least electable of the three candidates. She has alienated large portions of her own party, Independents will not vote for her and she can anticipate virtually no cross over votes. And Joe Gandelman talks about the very thing that made me go from Clinton to Obama.

And — also something we have noted repeatedly in our posts here — Clinton generates another reaction among many independent voters who detest the Rovian-style negative campaigning politics of division, seeming use of code words, and personal destruction (now widely covered in news reports as the Clinton campaign seeks to drive up Obama’s negatives more than make the case for her strengths against McCain):

Update II
More on McCain's problems.

Who's unelectable?

It's become obvious who the Rethuglicans want to run against in the November general election - it's Hillary. For example:
Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge
By Michael Barone
It wasn't always that way. Initially the Republicans thought that Obama would be an easier target and were helping him knock off Hillary. That changed in late 2007 when they figured out that Obama would be a formidable candidate.

Hillary Clinton's strategy has been to paint Obama us unelectable and they have done everything in their power to make that so. They may have had some success but in the process have made Hillary even less electable - her campaign has alienated an important part of the Democratic base.
Party Fears Racial Divide
Attacks Could Do Lasting Harm, Democrats Say

In addition her campaign tactics have offended many Independent supporters like me and Libertarians who are looking at Obama won't vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton has to be seen as the one who is most unelectable in November and it is the result of her Karl Rove style campaign. She had a lot of baggage to begin with and she has taken on even more in the last few months.

Even after her win in PA she contiues to lose support and donors to Obama. I am forced to give more credance to the conspirisy theory that she knows she can't get the nomination but want's to make sure Obama loses in November so she can run in 2012.

Sorry Hillary, it won't work. I have come to the conclusion that the Democractic Party would be stronger without you and Bill and all of your baggage.

Update
What John Cole says!

Jeff Merkley and President McCain

Jazz and I will be talking to Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley on Mid Stream Radio this morning at 10:00 PDT. You can call in at 646-595-3963. It has become even more important that Senator Gordon Smith be defeated in November since it appears that the Republicans have nominated the only Republican who could possibly win and that the Democrats will nominate one of the only two candidates who could possibly lose.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can win at this point. She was carrying a lot of baggage going into this campaign and has picked up a lot more. And is the US ready for a black president? Looking at the results of first Ohio and now Pennsylvania I suspect the answer is no. Obama will simply not get the vote of the white working class voter. I would like to blame Hillary's Rovian campaign for this but I can't. The Republicans would have played the card in the general election.

The only salvation for this country is for John McCain to have a very hostile House and Senate.

Too Stupid to be President

The Quote of the Day comes from John Cole:

I willingly concede that should we have a national crisis in which the President is faced with the threat of hundreds of reporters questioning his/her use of lapel pins, then Hillary is who I want to confront that problem.

For every other crisis, I choose Obama. Hillary is turning into a Saturday Night Live routine.

Now even John McCain realized early on that if he was to win the nomination he had to sell his soul and pander to the wingnut base. But not Hillary Clinton:

In a weird mirror image of last Friday's "cling" revelation — though perhaps without the same general election implications — this Friday afternoon brings a Huffington Post tape reportedly from a closed-door Hillary fundraiser in which Clinton scorns her opponent's supporters — the liberal activists who make up a pillar of the Democratic Party:

"MoveOn.org endorsed [Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Not only was it stupid she was lying once again. MoveOn as an organization never opposed the the war in Afghanistan. If she doesn't agree with a majority of the Democrats perhaps she should be running for the nomination as something other than a Democrat.

And this is what set John Cole off.

I am ashamed I actually supported this woman until January even though I made it clear I really didn't like her. F*#k Hillary Clinton and the DLC - I want real change.

Hillary Clinton - The New Joe Lieberman?

Now Hillary may not be openly supporting John McCain like Joe Lieberman but she is certainly doing McCain's campaigning for him. While the polls from PA are mixed there is reason to believe it may be hurting Clinton more than Obama. Robert Creamer attempts to give us an explanation.
Why Hillary Clinton's Slash-and-Burn Politics May Hurt Her More Than Obama

First, a negative attack has to ring true to the people you are attempting to persuade. Initial polls seem to indicate that most of the people who are receptive to the "Obama-is-a-condescending-'elitist'-argument" already supported Hillary in the primary before the attacks began. Clinton's attacks may rally some of her troops, but the argument doesn't seem to be that persuasive to actual undecided voters.

Of course one reason may have to do with the credibility of the messenger. It's tough to attack someone else for "elitism" if you've spent the last 16 years in Washington as First Lady and Senator, and your family brought in $107 million over the last seven years. Assuming an eight-hour workday, that means that Bill and Hillary made as much every two hours as Barack Obama made each full year that he organized out-of-work steelworkers for a coalition of church groups.

Second, the fact of a negative attack itself can backwash on the candidate who makes it. Making negative attacks makes people look mean and unlikable. That is a particular problem when the audience for your attacks includes Democratic primary voters and Super Delegates who really want to win the White House in November.

Clinton's negative attacks on Obama have especially begun to backfire with Super Delegates. I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee.

Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are "elitists" who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's been used for decades to convince everyday Americans to re-elect Republicans that outsource their jobs, destroy their unions and lower their wages. Many Democratic Super Delegates are apoplectic that Clinton would give credibility to that Republican line of attack on their likely standard-bearer.

We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more.

Finally, her attacks have allowed the Obama campaign - and the media - to parody her desperate attempts to appear "working class." When Obama conjured up images of Hillary Clinton sitting in a duck blind it called to mind those unforgettable pictures of Michael Dukakis in a tank.

If the Democrats don't win the White House in November it will be the fault of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. I supported her until January and would have voted for her in November until about a week ago. Now - my old nemesis Bob Barr is looking better all the time. We have to stop the attack on the constitution and the hegemonic neocon foreign policy before any of the other issues will really matter.

Update
A CQ Politics analysis indicates that even with a "big" win in PA Hillary will barely close the delegate advantage held by Obama.

Update II
Still more evidence that Hillary Clinton's politics Rove style may be backfiring.
Clinton losing traction over Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana

With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

A good performance in tommorows debate could all but sew it up for Obama.

The real insult!

As I said from the begining what Barack Obama said about rural voters may have been unwise but it was accurate. John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News agrees.

As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born, small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive, condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from are basically right on target.

[.....]

So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense.

What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words.

[......]

They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.

They're injured by a system of isolated, insulated political leadership that protects itself and the status quo above all else.

They've been harmed by a lack of political guts to fix a health-care system that works against the poor and forces middle-class families to pay more for less, while at the same time giving politicians the best coverage taxpayer money can buy.

They've been taken for granted by political parties and candidates who stay in power by - and this was the apparent gist of Obama's remarks - forcing attention and debate on issues tied to guns, religion and race (precisely because such issues resonate) rather than real problems such as health care and the economy.

Yes, Obama's remarks may have been unwise because he should have known that the Rovian campaigns being run by both John McCain and Hillary Clinton would jump all over it and be aided by the corporate media and their infotainment that pretends to be news. But the reality is the politicians and the pundits reacted the way they did because it was on the money and hit a little too close to home. Baer concludes with this:

So the question is whether Obama effectively defuses this, as he did the controversy surrounding his former minister. And that remains to be seen.

Just don't tell me that he insulted a state or, given his background, that he's an out-of-touch elitist.

And I especially don't want to hear such arguments from a candidate who spent decades in the bubble of a governor's mansion, the White House and the U.S. Senate, and under the blanket of $109 million income during the last eight years.

Pennsylvanians might cling to religion and guns. I hope they don't cling to stupidity.

Good for him - shame on her

Obama has discovered that the cynical Clinton campaign is just as capable of using Rovian slash and burn politics as the Republicans and he's fighting back. His only regret:

"Now, I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly," he said, "So I’m not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation, they were subject to be twisted and I regret that.

But he stands by what he said:

"And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25, 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I'm out of touch because I spoke honestly about people's frustrations, that tells me there's some politics going on," he said.

And he took a major swipe at Hillary's great adventures in hunting which were not unlike her adventures in Bosnia:

Obama said he was disappointed with her for her response and then launched into a new criticism of Clinton over her recent admission of being a hunter, and compared her sarcastically to Annie Oakley.

"She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

Now I'm a late victim of the Hillary derangement syndrome but I have to tell my friends Jazz and Chuck - you were right, I was wrong. I was continued to defend her will into January and even when I switched sides I said I would vote for her in November. Now I'm not so sure. Her sell centered cynicism and her adoption of Rove style politics has lead me to think that she is as much a part of the problem as John McCain. I have always had a problem with her DLC corporate connections.
And of course there are her neocon leanings that Justin Raimondo discussed in a cover story for American Conservative magazine. But until recently she still looked better than John McCain. I must admit that I am no longer so sure. Andrew Sullivan thinks that the Hillary campaign may have gone too far and that it will end up hurting her. He has some comments to prove it. Obama had been closing in on Clinton is PA - we will have to see what the racking polls have to say this week. While I never mark the box next to John McCain's name at this moment I'm not sure I would be able to mark the box next to Hillary Clinton's either.

Update
John Cole wonders......

Billy Kristol assures us that Obama is a Marxist in the NY Times in yet another embarrassing editorial, and my question for you is:

Who will be the first Hillary supporter to link this as a serious reason that Obama should not win the nomination?

I was wrong

I can admit when I was wrong. To all of you with Hillary derangement syndrome that I have mocked over the last few months I apologize - you were right, I was wrong!
Now we all had great fun mocking John McCain when he embraced the man that had viciously slimed him four years before. Now Hillary is embracing a man, Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent years and millions of his own dollars to slime Hillary and Bill Clinton. This was while attempting to resurrect the Obama's Rev Wright problem that had all but disappeared in order to deflect from her own lapse of memory on Bosnia. Now it gets even worse:
Obama And The Jews

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author's sudden conclusion: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak's verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama.

Of course this is not the first time that Hillary has made use of Rovian politics and right wing talking points in an attempt to knee cap Obama.

I didn't think that Hillary would do anything to get the nomination - I was wrong. I didn't think that Hillary would put her own self interests before the good of the party, the country and the world - I was wrong.

Why does Hillary hate America

I supported Hillary Clinton until late January even though I had to hold my nose most of the time. Her campaign tactics became too much for me and I switched. Today it became obvious to me that she would much rather see a President John McCain than a President Barack Obama in spite of the fact that would be a disaster for the country and the world. Just when it appeared that the Wright issue had become old news Hillary brings it up in an obvious attempt to draw attention from her Bosnia lies at a time when her own campaign thinks she only has a five or ten percent chance of getting the nomination.
Clinton: Wright 'would not have been my pastor'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.
"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Obama's lead in national polls had slipped since clips of the retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright began being played on national news programs, but he has since rebounded, according to a Gallup poll. The uproar prompted Obama to give a major speech on race in America last week.

But Obama was coming back and once again was leading in North Carolina by 21 points. This can only be described as a Tonya Harding attack which can only hurt the Democratic Party in November and the country for years.

It's time for Clinton campaign workers and supporters to jump ship - the country and the world depends on it.

None of the above?

I have wondered if there was a possibility that a brokered convention might result in neither Clinton or Obama getting the nomination. Since I really don't like either one of them I chalked it up to wishful thinking. So it was with interest I read this:
Mark Tomasik: Don't discount Gore-led ticket

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie counties, is hoping he won't have to attend the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August.

If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven't decided a nominee for the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

"If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

Now I don't know if Gore is the guy - he's got some baggage of his own, and I certainly can't imagine a Gore/Clinton ticket. I don't know how the Clinton and Obama supporters would react - would it unify or further divide?

Disgusted

I haven't been posting much - the reality is I'm tired of the bull shit. I've been working on my art and reading Science Fiction instead. I already know that McCain is a dangerous idiot so more evidence of that only bores me. I'm fed up with the Democratic primary campaign although I still think Obama is the best choice but best isn't always all that great. What really disgusts me though are the infantile supporters of Hillary that say they won't vote for Obama and the infantile Obama supporters who say they won't vote for Hillary. Fine - you will get the country you deserve to have. But guess what assholes it's not what everyone else deserves. I don't deserve it, my kids and grand kids don't deserve it, the people of Iraq don't deserve it, the world doesn't deserve it. This game is far too important for you to take your ball and go home so grow up.

Race, Politics and the Media

As we can see according to the latest from the Pew Research Center There are fewer Republicans and Republican leaning Independents than at any time since 2000.

The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.

By comparison, in 2004 about equal numbers of independents leaned toward both parties. When "leaners" are combined with partisans, however, the Democratic Party now holds a 14-point advantage among voters nationwide (51% Dem/lean-Dem to 37% Rep/lean-Rep), up from a three-point advantage four years ago.

So how can we explain the fact that John McCain is in a virtual tie with both Democratic candidates in spite of the fact he is little more than a clone of a president with a 32 percent approval rating? The economy is most voters primary concern and McCain has admitted he knows little about economics and in fact about the only thing he has said is that the Bush tax cuts should be continued. While approval of the Iraq war is up a little a majority still want the US out - McCain wants to be there for a hundred years. A majority of voters oppose military action against Iran - McCain wants to "bomb - bomb - bomb Iran". So how can he be doing so well? Is it because of race and gender? The gender issue is complicated because we are dealing with Hillary Clinton who has baggage that is not entirely gender related. The race issue is clearer. Obama has been unable to get a majority of white male voters in any primary, a sure sign that race is still an issue. John Cole pointed out that there is no way Obama could carry his state of West Virginia.

Posting at Firedoglake David Neiwert wonders how much of the race issue is a creation of the media.

Probably the most remarkable aspect of the recent feeding frenzy about Barack Obama's so-called "pastor problem" -- besides the agility and smarts that Obama has displayed in handling it -- is not as much what it reveals about the state of race in America as what it reveals about the state of the American media.

Is the media dumping gasoline on the race fire? David thinks the answer is yes.

Way too early to worry

Zogby has conducted a poll including Ralph Nader that shows McCain beating both Clinton and Obama. It shows Nader getting five or six percent which is ridiculous. The Supreme Court alone should be enough to convince all but one percent or less not to throw their vote away. And there are the other issues that will haunt McBush in the general election.

• Iraq: St John McBush is constantly reminding us that the surge has been a success. Juan Cole reports that the daily death count is once again increasing - 20 in January, 26 in February and 39 so far in April. And even General David Petraeus seems to be contradicting McCain as to how successful the surge has been.
• The Economy: The economy continues it's death spiral in spite of what George W. Bush might say. The dollar is no longer welcome even in third world countries. The FED was forced to bail out Bear Stearns in order to postpone a complete meltdown. The FED is all but powerless to halt the decline and the US faces what may perhaps be the worst recession since the great depression. It's not going to get any better between now and November and this is what McBush had to say a couple of months ago:

  “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.”
  

  This of course was shortly after he admitted he didn't know anything about economics.

And we shouldn't forget John McCain himself - he's an angry old man who often says really stupid things. He may have a the lead now simply because he's not getting any news coverage.

As I said below I think it is a good thing that Hillary is vetting Obama now. It's much better if the dirt comes out now than in October. We should pay attention but not panic.

Why would anyone want the job?

As I watch the bloody battle for the Democratic nomination I have to keep asking myself; why would anyone want the job. In a little over seven years the Bush administration has made a disastrous mess of everything. The unwise and mismanaged invasion and occupation of Iraq held every one's attention for much of it. But the war has really impacted very few. Many if not most are being impacted by the economy which is heading south faster everyday. Paul Krugman takes a look at that today and concludes there is little Ben Bernanke and the Fed can do about it - it will be up to the next administration.

I used to think that the major issues facing the next president would be how to get out of Iraq and what to do about health care. At this point, however, I suspect that the biggest problem for the next administration will be figuring out which parts of the financial system to bail out, how to pay the cleanup bills and how to explain what it’s doing to an angry public.

Why would anyone want the job? Indeed!

Come Back?

We have heard a lot about the dismal state of the Republican Party in 2008. Here in Oregon the Republicans have not won a state wide office for several election cycles. They lost control of the State House in 2006 but they have been talking about a come back. The Oregonian reports it won't be this year.
Oregon's anemic filing day
Despite its bold assertions to the contrary, the GOP came up short in its bid to take on Democrats

Leaders of Oregon's struggling Republican Party have done a lot of talking lately about the GOP being poised to make a big comeback on the state political front.

It's talk that wasn't aggressively backed up by action Tuesday on Oregon's filing deadline for the May primary.

Not a single Republican filed for attorney general, the party apparently having no one else to turn to a month ago when presumed GOP candidate Kevin Mannix began eyeing a run for Congress instead. And while several seasoned Democrats leaped into the race for secretary of state Tuesday, the Republicans mustered just one candidate, a political neophyte at that.

That's not exactly evidence of a party hellbent on roaring back to the days of glory when it held most of the statewide offices in Oregon. Nor did Tuesday's filing deadline show signs of an all-out Republican bid to regain control of the Legislature.

How else do you explain the party's failure to field candidates against a number of freshmen Democrats who won office two years ago by slim margins? In 2006, for example, Jean Cowan of Newport won her House seat by only 792 votes, yet this year she'll have no opponent at all.

And what about first-term Sens. Laurie Monnes Anderson of Gresham and Joanne Verger of Coos Bay? Leaders of both political parties considered the two Democrats to be beatable, yet neither will face a Republican opponent.

There are two state wide offices in play this year and in one case the Republicans will not even be fielding a candidate and can only come up with a weak candidate in the other. And any chance of taking back the State House evaporated when they couldn't find Republicans willing to run. Part of the problem in Oregon, like the rest of the country is money.

The eye-popping campaign spending of 2006 may have brought Oregon statehouse elections to a tipping point. Long-shot runs for the Legislature are discouraged by the cold reality of how difficult it is to amass the pile of campaign contributions now necessary.

That reality may be even harsher right now for the state's Republican Party, which recently was revealed to be more than $260,000 in debt and facing a $35,000 IRS lien for failing to pay payroll taxes. Long-shot candidates find running even less attractive when their party may not be solvent enough to pay for get-out-the-vote drives and other such support.

In order to come back the Republican Party in Oregon will have to re-invent itself.

Hope for resurgence of the state GOP may lie in the efforts of a new group, the Oregon Leadership Council, a broad cross-section of top Republicans. They've been meeting for months on strategies to "rebrand" the party and reverse its two decades of difficulty at winning statewide elections.

All who admired the Oregon Republican Party when it produced leaders such as Mark Hatfield, Vic Atiyeh and Tom McCall would heartily welcome such a resurgence. Unfortunately, as Tuesday made clear, it won't begin in Oregon's May 20 primary.

The Republican Party lost influence when it was taken over by the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-government crowd that did not represent the majority of the state.

More on Fallon Resignation

Many if not most of us jumped to the conclusion that the resignation of Navy Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command was the first step to an attack on Iran.
Juan Cole disagrees:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied Tuesday that the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander indicates an imminent war against Iran. I think Gates's denial is credible. There is no sign of an American war on Iran, which would involve key positioning of warships, materiel and troops. There is no congressional mandate for such a thing, despite the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution in the senate. A provocation is not out of the question, but it would be a risky move in an election year and could easily backfire on the Republican Party (ask Aznar in Spain).



My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or 'surge' in Iraq. He doesn't believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire.



Having such a big dissenter as CENTCOM commander is inconvenient for the Republican Party at a time when John McCain is admitting that if he fails to convince the American people that the surge is succeeding, he will lose the presidency. That is, Fallon may have run afoul not of Cheney on Iran but McCain on Iraq. This may be Bush's first favor to the Republican nominee, who after all had a career as a naval officer himself.

I think there may be some truth to that, at least I hope so. I suspect the thing that may have ended Adm. Fallon's career was the Esquire article. The Bush administration has demonstrated unlimited tolerance of incompetence but zero tolerance for dissent.

IL 14, The Republicans and Obama

While there is a danger of reading too much into Bill Foster's win over Jim Oberweis in the special election held in Illinois this weekend there is also a danger in reading too little. Captain Ed has some legitimate criticism of the Illinois Republican Party and the candidate they picked but the fact remains the NRCC spent over a million dollars, 20% of their cash on hand in an unsuccessful attempt to hold the seat. Voter turnout was low which in the past has given the Republicans the edge but this time it looks like they are the ones who stayed home. And perhaps the most significant is that Obama campaigned for Foster and McCain for Oberweis giving Obama an early victory over McCain in a Republican district.

Yesterday, little-known Democrat Bill Foster scored a major upset and won the congressional seat held for 20 years by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican. The race was a proxy war between Barack Obama and John McCain.

This should be a big plus for Obama and the Democratic leadership should pay attention.

Foster also sent a message to congressional Democrats who are getting week in the knees when it comes to telecom immunity - Foster is against it and he won.

There has been a minimal attempt to try to spin this on the right side of the blogosphere. Most like Ed have blamed the candidate or the Illinois Republican Party.

This brings me to a related point, the Republicans and Obama. Until recently the Republican and media types have gone easy on Obama, Not because the liked him but because they thought he would be an easier target in November. I can't blame them for that, I was in that camp until recently. They suddenly find that is not the case. They also realize the odds of winning in November are not really very good and they would really rather have Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama in the White House. The have started to be critical and attack Obama now but Hillary is still doing all the work for them.

Not So Safe

The big news tonight is not that Obama beats Clinton in Wyoming caucuses but that former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house seat was won by a Democrat in spite of the fact that NRCC pumped over a million dollars they didn't have into the race.

CHICAGO -- A longtime Republican district fell to the Democrats Saturday when a wealthy businessman and scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a closely watched special election.

Democrat Bill Foster won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis. With 565 of 568 precincts reporting, Foster had 51,140 votes to Oberweis' 46,270.

"Tonight our voices are echoing across the country and Washington will hear us loud and clear, it's time for a change," Foster told cheering supporters Saturday evening.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said Foster's win is a rebuke of the Bush administration and of the GOP's apparent presidential nominee, John McCain, who campaigned for Oberweis.

IL 14 should have been as safe as a seat can get for the Republicans since no Democrat has held the seat for over 30 years.

Update
It appears that Oberweis was simply not crazy enough to get the real wingnuts out to vote.

Libertarians for Obama?

A few days ago Alan Abramowitz said he thought the greatest threat to John McCain was not the conservatives who have opposed him but the moderate-to-liberal Republicans. I thought at the time he was leaving out another important group - the libertarians and paleocons. Few on the left have been more critical of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war than the old right. Their critiques can be found at The American Conservative, Cato At Liberty and LewRockwell.com. With the Quixotesque campaign of Ron Paul finished where would the Libertarians turn? Justin Raimondo for one has become an "Obama Cultist".

Obama kept mentioning the war – you know, the one we were lied into on phony "evidence" of a nonexistent nuclear program. Not only that, but he kept reminding Hillary we should never had launched it in the first place: he needled her until she visibly squirmed. That was the hook, the lure that drew me ineluctably into the Obama cult.

Okay, let's admit this, too: it is a cult, i.e. a group centered around a single leader, whose pronouncements and personality form the basis of belief. With Obama, the clincher is that distinctly presidential air he carries with such alacrity: he acts and speaks as if he's already the President, and is merely waiting to be officially elected out of simple courtesy and respect for tradition.

Obama-mania is indeed a cult, but that's okay: after all, I'm a longtime Ron Paul fan, too – my enthusiasms are strictly non-partisan – and so idealism doesn't scare me, I think it's a rare and good thing in politics, and in life. After all, Christianity, when it began, was a cult, and yet now we have presidential candidates chasing after the Christian constituency, no matter how wacky some of their leaders may be.

I have to say that the turning point, for me, was when Rep. Paul's presidential campaign seemed to go into suspended animation. An attempt to derail the Revolution by challenging Paul in the GOP congressional primary necessitated a tactical shift, and Chris Peden, the challenger, was crushed, 70-30. Oh, it was a great day: you could practically hear Roger L Simon sobbing and I'll be damned if I didn't hear the faint echoes of Jamie Kirchick's furious shrieks ("I'm melting! Melting!").

With the GOP presidential sweepstakes over, the antiwar voter – that is, the single-issue voter who conditions his support on the candidate's generally pro-peace foreign policy stance – was left with a single choice, and that is Obama.

Raimondo has made it clear that he won't vote for Hillary Clinton but he fears the establishment will shoot down Obama in favor of the hawkish Hillary.

Hillary the hawk shrieks, and strikes – but, on second thought, she's more like a shrike, a fierce bird that seems to take a perverse pleasure in impaling its victims on thorns, perhaps as a display to frighten its enemies. Our Democratic war-birds have always ruled the party's nest, and the Clintons won't hesitate to push Obama and his supporters to the forest floor, if they have to.

At this point, neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win, and neither is likely to acquire that magic number. Therefore, in the end, it will be the super-delegates – the party Establishment – who will pick the nominee. A few hundred party insiders – now that's American democracy in action. Keep this in mind the next time the US government takes, say, Russia to task for supposedly veering off he road to democracy.

A vote for a saner if not sane American foreign policy is a vote for Obama not the neocon Hillary.

It's the economy stupid!

Paul Krugman believes that the economy will be the issue in November. I think he is correct although Iraq will be a bigger issue by October than it appears to be now. Krugman also believes that Clinton is better equipped to take advantage of American's economic anxieties. From what I've seen up to this point I would have to agree. As David Brooks says:

Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway.

While Iraq will be a problem for John McCain the economy is a real problem as Mark Silva explains:

As if the economy weren't already stepping up as a driving force in the 2008 presidential race, the Labor Department announced this morning that 63,000 jobs were lost in February.

This marks the biggest slide since March 2003, and cements a two-month reversal in an economy that had added employment each month for more than four years.

It's another telling measure of the "slowdown'' in the economy that President Bush has described -- or perhaps the "recession'' that many economists say is already under way.

And the new February jobs-report adds another element to the campaign for the candidates hoping to succeed Bush in January.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, fresh from a strong primary victory in the economically challenged once-great industrial state of Ohio, is portraying herself as the candidate best prepared to serve as a steward of the economy. Sen. Barack Obama maintains that his ideas for innovation will help spur the economy. The Republican who will face one of them in November, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, is promoting a continuation of the Bush tax cuts as key to spurring the economy.

As Brooks points out Obama is being pressured to jump into the gutter with Clinton.

The consultants, needless to say, gravitate toward the tactical interpretation. And once again the cry has gone up for Obama to get tough. This advice gets wrapped in metaphors. Obama has to start “throwing punches” or “taking the gloves off.”

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things.

[.....]

These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules.

[.....]

As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

If Obama wants to win the nomination and the general election he should all but ignore Hillary Clinton. He needs to start talking about specific economic proposals - progressive ones. He needs to point out the John McCain's only economic proposals consist of extending the Bush tax cuts and borrowing money forever to stay in Iraq. Brooks is right - if he jumps into the gutter with Hillary Clinton he will lose.